• Print

Campbell's Cuts: CBA serving purpose of driving up franchise values

Alex Ovechkin inked a 13-year $124 million contract with the Capitals last season. (Photo by Mitchell Layton/NHLI via Getty Images)

Zoom Image

Alex Ovechkin inked a 13-year $124 million contract with the Capitals last season. (Photo by Mitchell Layton/NHLI via Getty Images)

Guys like George Gillett gave up a season of profits so that guys like Ted Leonsis could have a better chance to make some of their own. But, three years after the lockout, the collective bargaining agreement does not seem to be working so great for either of them.

The lockout was supposed to be about keeping player costs in line, but Gillett looks at the money he is paying out and notices that with what his team pays into player salaries and revenue sharing, he is putting out more money than he did prior to the lockout. He owns the Montreal Canadiens.

The lockout was supposed to level the financial playing field and give everyone a chance to make a profit. Leonsis looks at his bottom line and sees he is still losing money and will do so again this season. In order for him to start making any money, the stars will have to align as they never have before. He owns the Washington Capitals.

So, the new CBA does not really help the large-market teams such as the Canadiens, who are now spending more than they did before. And it is not helping the smaller guys such as Leonsis who continue to lose gobs of money.

“Overall I’m much happier than I was pre-lockout,” Leonsis said. “I would say all the arrows are green.”

But all the ink remains red. In fact, Leonsis said in order for the Capitals to put themselves in a money-making situation, overall league revenues would have to actually grow more slowly than they have so far.

“Then the cap would not grow as fast,” Leonsis said. “So let’s say the cap only grows $1 million or $2 million next year and we grow our revenues $10 million. We’re at the top of the cap and if it stayed there and we had a good year and we sold $10 million worth of tickets the following year…because you could raise prices and sell it out and make the playoffs. There’s a path to profitability.”

But, holy cow Batman, how much clearing do you have to do to get there? So, in order for the Capitals to make money, the team has to have a monster season this year, they have to sell the place out on a consistent basis, have a long playoff run, then raise the price of tickets next year and do it all again.

Meanwhile, back in Montreal, Gillett sees the mighty NFL is trying to reconfigure an agreement that sees the players get a lower percentage of the league revenues than they are getting now. In the NFL, players get about 59 percent of revenues. In the NHL, the players got 55.6 percent of the $2.32 billion in revenues for 2006-07. The numbers for last season are not in yet, but if they go up to $2.5 billion, the players will get 56.25 percent and if they hit $2.7 billion, the players will get 57 percent.

Related Links

“We’re paying substantially more in revenue sharing (and salaries) than we’re saving against the old system,” Gillett said. “Some of these things are going to need examination.”

One of the big problems with the CBA is that it works on a macro scale, but not a micro one. Having salaries tied to revenues sounds like a good thing, but it is only good if your revenues grow along with the rest of the league. For Leonsis to make money, he essentially has to hope other teams suffer while he increases his business. And for Gillett to increase his profits, he also needs to see the league suffer financially to bring down his player costs.

How screwy is that? In order for both powerful and small-market teams to make money, the macro and micro cannot line up.

“It’s almost like the NHL, at least from the cap and players’ standpoint, are aside and apart from reality,” Leonsis said. “And I just hope everyone in pro sports realizes how blessed we are that salaries are going up, franchise values for the most part are going up and revenues are going up. That’s not what’s happening in the real world.”

All of which confirms what I have thought all along. The lockout was not about getting costs in line or keeping ticket prices affordable. It was about one thing – franchise values. Even if Gillett is not making as much money as before the lockout, the man who bought the Canadiens and the Bell Centre for $250 million when nobody else wanted it, has watched the value of his asset skyrocket.

And even if the Capitals continue to lose money, Leonsis acknowledges his franchise is worth more now. The only problem is that Leonsis says he never intends to sell the Capitals.

But any system that forces people to sell in order to recoup their losses is fundamentally flawed. Luckily, the two sides still have four more years to figure out how to get it right.

 

Ken Campbell is a senior writer for The Hockey News and a regular contributor to THN.com. His blog appears Wednesday and Fridays and his column, Campbell's Cuts, appears Mondays.

For more great profiles, news and views from the world of hockey, Subscribe to The Hockey News magazine.

COMMENTS (15)

Sort: Oldest | Newest | Love | Hate    Filter: All | Videos


Jamie Ireland Posted
(2009-04-30 07:07:47)



Wake up out there, George Gillet does not own the Habs or Liverpool, the banks do! The Bell Centre has been turned into the Cirque du Soleil and the average hockey fan has been quietly shut out of the picture. Beer, Hot dogs and souvenirs are beyond the reach for the former loyal fan. The very sad thing in all of this is that no Quebecer expect former Hab Dickie Moore came forward to buy the Habs. This is the story of professional sports in Quebec. The Expos, and Nordiques are two examples of the apathy of Quebec sports fans. Atleast in Toronto you have the Jays, Raptors and and a great soccer stadium. Here in Montreal we have to constantly delude ourselves thet we are a CULTURAL city. By the way we just lost the Canadian Grand Prix! Some of the drivers said that driving on Circuit Gilles Villeneuve was like driving on a Quebec highway! In closing I'd like to commend Mr. Gilette for buying the Habs. However I wish he actually had some money of his own to buy the team. Jamie in Laval, Canada
    0



NateDogg Posted
(2009-04-30 07:07:42)



Riley - You don't know anything about the Capitals sales figures, nor are you an authority about whats good for the NHL and whats not, so why don't you just keep your ignorant comments to yourself. I'd be happy to direct you to a close friend of mine that works in the Capitals sales dept and I'm sure he'd be happy to explain how season ticket sales were through the roof for this year. You must be a penguins fan.
    0



Riley Posted
(2009-04-30 07:07:42)



Nate, take away Ovechkin, how many citizens of D.C. would buy Caps season tickets? Few. D.C. does not deserve an NHL franchise. Period. The NFL's Redskins, NBA's Wizards, MLB's Nationals- not to mention the huge college sports scene in Washington- all overshadow hockey to the point it gets lost in the mix.
    0



Riley Posted
(2009-04-30 07:07:41)



Washington is such a lousy NHL market... I don't even know why they have a team... There's empty seats and they have Ovechkin! It was even WORSE pre-Ovechkin! Imagine if they LOSE Ovechkin... Relocate Washington. Just because they've been in the league a long time and have Ovechkin doesn't mean they're good for the NHL
    0



Oil Country Posted
(2009-04-30 07:07:24)



wts...sign crappier players in a non hockey market gives you zero chance of making $$. Bob...The Caps would be worth a lot less if not for Ovie. Jon...I understand what ur sayin but like dave puts it, these are multi-billionaire owners who use their NHL team as a hobby. Some do but some are real serious about winning and/or making money.
    0



Nate from NJ Posted
(2009-04-30 07:07:24)



RIMforOwnership. I feel your pain. Its a shame that Warren Buffet isn't a hockey fan. This "ownership by committee" that is currently in place at MLSE SUCKS and is killing the franchise BIG TIME.
    0



Jon Frandsen Posted
(2009-04-30 07:07:22)



Here's an interesting thought. Maybe buying a hockey team is like investing in the stock market? You invest money to get a higher return if/when you sell. The dividends (or yearly profits) don't support you but in the long run you sell the team and 'earn' your money. When you buy IBM stock, it's the same thing.
    0



RIMforOwnership Posted
(2009-04-30 07:07:15)



Jim Balsillie please buy my Toronto Maple Leafs and fire EVERYONE. But I don't think you have that kind of money :(......
    0



Etienne Posted
(2009-04-30 07:07:14)



Tom, when Gillet bought the Habs, they were at their lowest in their rich and long history. The Houle/Tremblay duo saw to it by destroying the 93 team, drafting like idiots and the cherry-on-top: trading Patrick Roy for 2 bags of used pucks. You also have to consider that the Habs pay more taxes than all the other 29 franchises put together, as the others canadian teams got a tax cut from their provincial government. THIS BEING SAID, a Stanley Cup for any canadian team is 20 millions in the bank account. For the Habs, it's 40. For the Habs this season on their 100th, I wouldn't surprised if Gillet could make over 60 millions from merchandises sold, TV contracts, sponsorships and all that stuff just for winning the Cup. You had to be their during last year's playoffs. The whole province is starving for a Cup. He should also be pleased that he sold every tickets of every home games in less than 24 open hours (which ensured I won't get any...), and they're not exactly the cheapest tickets around in the NHL (price ranges from 25 to 220$ per tickets, and dont get me started on the price of the beers...). But all things fair, Gillet's a good owner, he's not afraid to spend if it can help the team win (new training facility, state-of-the-art clinic, amazing team of physicians, etc...)
    0



whatsthatsmell Posted
(2009-04-30 07:07:11)



The Caps and Canadiens are both poised to have monster seasons with extended playoff runs, this year and next. Both teams seem to be in a position to be contenders for the next several years. This should translate into lots more revenue for both. I don't see what the problem is here. Owners crying again. Maybe they should just sign crappier players. Then they won't have a huge salary hit.
    0




ADD YOUR COMMENT

Register or Login to submit a comment
Player/Injury News - Up to the Minute NHL Updates This Week - Subscribe Now

Who wins the Smyth-Quincey/Preissing trade?




THN Newsletter - Sign Up Now

"I'm not here to replace him."

- Martin Havlat, who signed with Minnesota a few hours after former Wild star Marian Gaborik inked a UFA deal with the Rangers.

Our Partners